Mike Wakefield v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors

The Appellant is a trainee driving instructor. The Appellant appealed against a decision of the Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors (“the Registrar”) made on 6 February 2025 to refuse to grant the Appellant a third trainee licence.

At the request of the Appellant, a hearing was convened to hear the appeal by video (CVP). When the hearing opened at 10am on 18 August 2025 neither party was present. Notice of the hearing was sent to both parties by email on 24 March 2025 with a link to join the proceedings. The Registrar was not expected to appear having previously notified the Tribunal that he does not intend to be represented at hearings of this type. The Appellant had confirmed his availability to attend the hearing in an email sent to the Tribunal on 28 July 2025. The Tribunal clerk telephoned the Appellant shortly before the hearing to check his attendance. There was no reply, and the call went to voicemail. The clerk made two further attempts to call the Appellant without reply and also sent an email without response. Having waited until 10.19am, the Tribunal considered it in the interests of justice to proceed to determine the appeal in the absence of the parties pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

The Tribunal received a bundle of documents composed of 19 pages plus index, which I have fully considered.

In the decision, the Registrar says that the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences of 6 months’ duration. The Registrar considers that this has given the Appellant sufficient opportunity to gain the necessary experience. They have failed to provide any evidence of a lack of pupils or practice time.

The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated 18 February 2025. The Appellant says he failed his first attempt at the Part 3 test on 12 August 2024 after the intended pupil informed him of their unavailability just days before the test. After further training, the Appellant had a second attempt at the Part 3 test booked for 4 March 2025. His sponsoring school has faced challenges assigning him pupils of varying abilities. Most pupils over the previous 4 to 5 months were already “test-ready”.

The Registrar’s Statement of Case dated 16 July 2025 resists the appeal. The Appellant did not provide a reply to the Respondent’s Statement of Case.

The grant of a trainee licence enables applicants to provide instruction for payment before they are qualified as an Approved Driving Instructor (“ADI”). A trainee licence may be granted in the circumstances set out in section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the Act’) and the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005.

A licence under section 129(1) of the Act is granted: ‘for the purpose of enabling a person to acquire practical experience in giving instruction in driving motor cars with a view to undergoing such part of the examination... as consists of a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct.’

To qualify as an ADI, applicants must pass the Qualifying Examination. This comprises: the written examination (‘Part 1’); the driving ability and fitness test (‘Part 2’); and the instructional ability and fitness test (‘Part 3’). Three attempts at Part 3 are permitted. The whole examination must be completed within 2 years of passing Part 1, failing which the whole examination must be retaken. If a candidate has passed Part 2, they may be granted a trainee licence.

The powers of the Tribunal in determining this appeal are set out in section 131 of the Act. The Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit (section 131(3)). The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Registrar and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Registrar’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions.

The Appellant passed Part 1 of the Qualifying Examination on 14 September 2023 and Part 2 on 18 October 2023. He failed his first attempt at Part 3 on 12 August 2024 and his second attempt on 4 March 2025. His third and final attempt at the Part 3 test is booked for 18 September 2025.

The Appellant is not now and never has been on the Register of Approved Driving Instructors.

Two licences were granted to the Appellant under section 129 of the Act. They were valid from 15 January 2024 to 14 January 2025.

On 10 January 2025 the Appellant applied for a third trainee licence. As the Appellant applied before the licence expired, the Appellant has had the benefit of a trainee licence for a further period of over 8 months by the time of the hearing.

By email sent on 15 January 2025, the Registrar notified the Appellant that he was considering refusal of the application for a third licence. The Appellant was asked to “verify missed time with independent evidence”.

The Appellant made representations in response by email on 28 January 2025. He explained his difficulties obtaining pupils of varying abilities to complete his training. The Appellant said that he could provide a letter from the manager at the driving school confirming that the majority of his pupils over the previous 4 to 5 months were already test ready. He did not provide the letter. The Appellant stated that he was committed to overcoming these challenges and continuing to develop as an instructor.

Having considered those representations, the Registrar gave notice to refuse the licence application on 6 February 2025 for the following reasons:

The Appellant’s grounds of appeal rely upon a lack of pupils of varying ability to gain the necessary practical experience to pass his Part 3 test.

The outcome sought in the Notice of Appeal is an extension of the trainee licence until the Appellant’s third and final attempt at the Part 3 examination.

The Appellant cites a lack of pupils of varying abilities as the reason for his failed Part 3 tests and why he seeks a further trainee licence. However, no evidence has been supplied of these difficulties. The Appellant said that he could provide a letter in support from his manager, yet he has still not done so.

Holding a trainee licence is not necessary in order to qualify as an ADI, and many people qualify without having held a trainee licence. The refusal of a licence does not prevent him from taking the Qualifying Examination.

Two trainee licences were granted to the Appellant to enable him to gain practical experience to assist in passing Part 3 of the Qualifying Examination. Therefore, the Appellant has already had the benefit of two trainee licences covering a period of 12 months. In addition, the Appellant has had the benefit of a further period exceeding 7 months up until the hearing date. Had the application for a third trainee licence been granted, it would already have expired.

The overall period in which the Appellant has been able to give driving instruction should have provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain the practical experience envisaged by the Act. The Appellant can continue to study and practice and is able to continue to gain experience and take the test without a trainee licence. It is not the purpose of trainee licences to keep renewing them until all attempts at passing Part 3 have been taken.

Having weighed all matters in the balance, I am not satisfied that the Registrar’s decision was wrong in any way. In all the circumstances, I agree with the Registrar’s decision and the appeal is dismissed.